Experts
|
|
Agree
|
Former Governor of Alaska (Republican)
Agree
Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support. [in answer to the question: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?]
U.S. Senator, Republican
Agree
The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Tom Coburn [who believes abstinence only education is effective]. ... I look to people like [him]. I’m not very wise on it.
United States President 2001-2009
Agree
We will double federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases.
U.S. Senator
Agree
I know the statistics [about condoms]. They break. They slip. What we've done is not told the whole truth about condoms. ... My position is, if you can get people to use condoms perfectly, and you can make sure they use them, and tell them what the risks are, and tell them the breakage rates and slippage rates are, it's a good strategy. ... I believe that monogamy is the answer to HIV infection. I understand that people think I'm not a realist in this area.
|
|
U.S. Branch of Roman Catholic Church
Agree
[It is a myth that] abstinence is unworkable and unrealistic [and that] teens are going to have sex anyway so we need to teach them "safe" sex.
|
|
Disagree
|
United States President
Disagree
If condoms and potentially microbicides can prevent millions of deaths, they should be made more widely available. I know that there are those who, out of sincere religious conviction, oppose such measures. And with these folks, I must respectfully but unequivocally disagree. I do not accept the notion that those who make mistakes in their lives should be given an effective death sentence...
|
|
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Disagree
The impact findings show no overall impact on teen sexual activity, no differences in rates of unprotected sex, and some impacts on knowledge of STDs and perceived effectiveness of condoms and birth control pills.
|
Ambiguous or Flip-Flop
|
Sarah Palin's Daughter
Agree
Regardless of what I did personally, I just think that abstinence is the only way you can effectively, 100% foolproof way you can prevent pregnancy. ... I just want to go out there and promote abstinence and say, this is the safest choice. This is the choice that's going to prevent teen pregnancy and prevent a lot of heartache.
Sarah Palin's Daughter
Disagree
Abstinence [is] not realistic at all.
|
|
Arguments
|
|
If you
disagree, then you
possibly
agree with:
Is abstinence-only sex education effective?
|
|
This is partly a question regarding the reliability of latex condoms, and partly a question regarding the ability of those who use condoms to always and correctly use them. The scientific evidence regarding the first question is clear - latex condoms are highly effective. The answer to the second question is less clear.
|
In order to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV, persons should observe sexual
abstinence outside marriage and spouses should be mutually faithful to each other within marriage. From a scientific point of view, the correct use of a latex condom can reduce the risk of sexual transmission of HIV; however, even from a strictly scientific point of view, condom use cannot be said to be 100% effective, since many behavioral factors may interfere with correct use.
|
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
|
|
|
If you
agree, then you
possibly
disagree with:
Is abstinence-only sex education effective?
|
|
At a certain stage in a human's development, terminating that human's life is equivalent to murder. Today, in most countries, that stage is at the latest any point during or after birth, but in the past infanticide has been acceptable. In the U.S., that point, legally, is when the fetus becomes viable outside the mother's womb. The fundamentalist Christian position is that life begins at conception, and destroying a fertilized egg (a single cell called a zygote) is morally equivalent to murder.
|
I strongly believe that a fetus is a human life, and that a fetus deserves the same legal protections afforded to all Americans.
|
When a woman has an abortion, the fetus is alive, and it is undoubtedly human – in the sense that it is a member of the species homo sapiens. It isn't a dog or a chimpanzee. But mere membership of our species doesn't settle the moral issue of whether it is wrong to end a life. As long as the abortion is carried out at less than 20 weeks of gestation – as almost all abortions are – the brain of the fetus has not developed to the point of making consciousness possible.
|
|
|
If you
disagree, then you
possibly
disagree with:
Is abstinence-only sex education effective?
|
|
In many cultures, sexual inexperience of a woman is considered valuable, while the opposite is often true for a man.
|
Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
|
... I don’t think a girl’s a slut if she enjoys sex. I could have a one-night stand, and I’m the kind of girl who looks over in the morning and is like, Do you really have to be here? I don’t need to cuddle and do all that stuff because I know what it is and I don’t try to make it more. I feel like a lot of women try to make it into more, so they don’t feel so bad about just wanting to have sex. I don’t really have a problem with wanting sex. Never have. ...
|
Indirect Arguments
|
|
If you
agree, then you
possibly
disagree with:
Is abortion morally acceptable?
|
|
The belief in an immaterial soul requires that central aspects of a person, such as consciousness, memories, and personality, are not contingent upon our physical bodies. The concept was first formalized in western philosophy by Rene Descartes in the 17th century, who proposed that our soul interacts with our body via the pineal gland in the brain. That theory has since been rejected by mainstream science.
|
The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.
|
Imagine a world in which each of us has a special inner core - a ‘real self’ - that makes us who we are, that can think and move independently of our coarse physical body, and that ultimately survives death, giving meaning to our otherwise short and pointless lives. This is (roughly speaking) how most people think the world is. It is how I used to think -and even hope - that the world is. I devoted 25 years of my life to trying to find out whether it is. Now I have given up.
|
|
|
If you
agree, then you
presumably
agree with:
Is abortion morally acceptable?
|
|
The value of a life is often considered proportional to its capacity to feel, think, and be self-aware. As such, animals are often treated with less value than humans, as are embryos with less value than adults. However, some religious thinkers believe that these factors are inconsequential - all that matters is that the life is a human one, and that it is uniformly valuable regardless of its development or deterioration, providing ground to their opposition to abortion and euthanasia.
|
Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.
|
Even when the fetus does develop a capacity to feel pain – probably in the last third of the pregnancy – it still does not have the self-awareness of a chimpanzee, or even a dog. When this is pointed out, some opponents of abortion respond that the fetus, unlike the dog or chimpanzee, is made in the image of God, or has an immortal soul. They thereby acknowledge religion is the driving force behind their opposition. But there is no evidence for these religious claims...
|
|
|
If you
agree, then you
possibly
disagree with:
Is abortion morally acceptable?
|
|
Even if a fetus has not developed enough to feel pain, some people argue that is still wrong because the potential for life has been destroyed.
|
The loss of one's life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.
|
...the argument from potential rapidly leads to absurdity. ...it is possible to clone an animal by taking the nucleus of an ordinary cell, and implanting it in an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. There is no biological reason to suppose that this would not work for human beings. This means that billions of our cells have the potential to become an actual person. Yet no one thinks that we have an obligation to "save" all these cells and turn them into people.
|
Comments
Collective
Agree
|
|
Edit (wiki edits require login)
|
|
Disagree
|
|
Edit (wiki edits require login)
|
|
Individual
|
